Headlines

WFB

Video: Drone strikes are “legal,” “ethical,” and “wise”

White House press secretary said Tuesday the administration’s use of drones is “legal,” “ethical,” and “wise,” at a press briefing following remarks by President Obama.

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

War is peace.

CurtZHP on February 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM

I support the use of drone strikes on the clear and imminent danger of our country *cough* D.C. *cough*.

nobar on February 5, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Is this the same man who said we can’t just go around air raiding villages?

Suffer immeasurably 50.8%’ERS.

tom daschle concerned on February 5, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Let’s put some on the southern border then and let the missiles fly.

xblade on February 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Leftists are the ultimate hypocrites.

Schadenfreude on February 5, 2013 at 4:09 PM

I’ve checked every progressive socialist website I frequented during Bush’ presidency and how even a HINT of this would spur on frothing at the mouth of how this was open season on”patriotic dissenting” Americans and Bus was trying to install an empire, yadda, yadda…

Today?

Not.
One.
Word.

Skywise on February 5, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Gee, those crazy 2nd Amendment nuts who think they might their need guns someday to protect themselves from their own government — not so crazy after all, huh?

Rational Thought on February 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Is this the war on terror, or euthanization at an animal shelter?

portlandon on February 5, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Obama should be removed from office legally, ethically and wisely.

Ronnie on February 5, 2013 at 4:16 PM

As long as we don’t listen to their phone calls…

d1carter on February 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Gee, those crazy 2nd Amendment nuts who think they might their need guns someday to protect themselves from their own government — not so crazy after all, huh?

Rational Thought on February 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM

And they will be presented as “anti-government” by the Treasonous media complex. I hear it more and more often reported that way.

tom daschle concerned on February 5, 2013 at 4:18 PM

“Legal, ethical, and wise”: the new “safe, legal, and rare.”

BuckeyeSam on February 5, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Ohhhhh. That’s what he meant when he said he shoots skeet all the time.

Weight of Glory on February 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Gee, those crazy 2nd Amendment nuts who think they might their need guns someday to protect themselves from their own government — not so crazy after all, huh?

Rational Thought on February 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM

That’s the old argument. Now the leftards like to tell us, as they sport a stiffy about it, how our little semi-auto guns are no match for a Hellfire missile fired from a drone.

So they’ve basically accepted our premise, while salivating over fantasies of our violent demise.

CurtZHP on February 5, 2013 at 4:20 PM

The level of liberal rationalization for this around the interwerbs is epic. I particularly love the ACLU’s reaction. “Ummm, we don’t think our guy should, you know, just go around murdering American citizens…but he’s still our sweet, sweet angel boy. You know, except for the murdering of American citizens stuff. But mostly he’s still our sweet, sweet angel baby and we loves him a lot.”

Rational Thought on February 5, 2013 at 4:20 PM

second amendment supporter=other
pro life=other
conservative=other
fiscal responsibility=other
retired military=other

Shouldn’t be long now.

tom daschle concerned on February 5, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Why do American’s need AR-15s? Oh by the way here’s out legal argument for killing Americans with drones.

- Obama Administration

Weight of Glory on February 5, 2013 at 4:21 PM

For some forms of ideological hypocrisy, the expression limousine liberal doesn’t apply. So, for a case such as this, I propose the expression Sergeant Schultz Liberal.

BuckeyeSam on February 5, 2013 at 4:23 PM

we are now in an arms race folks. You’ll get to keep your guns, but fat lot of good it’ll do you when a hellfire whacks your truck.

ted c on February 5, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain SPECIFIED ACTS VOLUNTARILY AND WITH THE INTENTION to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1. Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon one’s own application after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

Inapplicable.

2. Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a FOREIGN STATE or ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

Inapplicable.

3. Entering or serving in the armed forces of a FOREIGN STATE engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

Inapplicable.

4. Accepting employment with a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT after the age of 18 if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

Inapplicable.

5. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

Inapplicable.

6. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for implementing this section of the law) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

Inapplicable.

7. CONVICTION for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

Inapplicable.

NONE of the Americans that Obama has assassinated had “lost their citizenship,” as some foolishly and ignorantly claim. Nor does fighting for a terrorist organisation meet the requirement that the enemy combatant be fighting for an enemy GOVERNMENT.

Furthermore, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Court ruled that the President may hold enemy combatants, including Americans, but also held that detainees who are US citizens HAVE RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS and MUST be able to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial court. In most cases, including Anwar al-Awlaki, these people had not even been indicted.

If a President cannot strip Americans, who are enemy combatants fighting for non-government enemies of their due process rights in connection with detention, he cannot do the same by ordering their assassination.

Resist We Much on February 5, 2013 at 4:27 PM

it’s the abortion argument….

ted c on February 5, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Waterboarding is so dehumanizing…

d1carter on February 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Just don’t arm the drones with moist towels or it’s torture!

Chuck Schick on February 5, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Troll Free.

Del Dolemonte on February 5, 2013 at 4:43 PM

“These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise.”

- Jay Carney, 5 February 2013

Killing American citizens is OK, but waterboarding known terrorists, who coughed up information, was against our “values,” according to this administration.

HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY!

Resist We Much on February 5, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Drone Strikes Make the Baby Jesus Cry.

HondaV65 on February 5, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Gee, those crazy 2nd Amendment nuts who think they might their need guns someday to protect themselves from their own government — not so crazy after all, huh?

Rational Thought on February 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Barky clings bitterly to his Predators and Newports.

CorporatePiggy on February 5, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Has code pink attempted a citizens arrest on any member of this administration?

tom daschle concerned on February 5, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Imagine if Bush did this with Cheney’s support. The Legacy Media would be frothing at the mouth, screeching at the top of their lungs.

This just proves once again that the Left does not care about reality. Their only concern is self-congratulation, boosting their self-esteem, and making themselves feel good about themselves. It’s all just a big game or some kind of twisted entertainment. As every year passes I reluctantly begin to accept the Progressive ideology might indeed be some kind of “mental disorder.”

visions on February 5, 2013 at 5:58 PM

They just think of them as high altitude retroactive abortions.

Chickyraptor on February 5, 2013 at 6:11 PM